GNU bug report logs - #39885
Bioconductor URI, fallback and time-machine

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: rekado <at> elephly.net, Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>, 39885 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, me <at> tobias.gr
Subject: bug#39885: Bioconductor tarballs are not archived
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 16:02:53 +0100

Hi!

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:

>> I was wondering whether we’re now doing better for Bioconductor
>> tarballs.  The answer, based on small sample, seems to be “not quite”:

[...]

> but, now the past reads,
>
> $ for url in https://bioconductor.org/packages/release/bioc/src/contrib/BiocNeighbors_1.20.0.tar.gz \
>              https://bioconductor.org/packages/3.18/bioc/src/contrib/BiocNeighbors_1.20.0.tar.gz ;  \
>       do guix download $url ;done

Thanks for investigating & explaining!

I my previous message, I wrote:

> As for past tarballs, #swh-devel comrades say we could send them a list
> of URLs and they’d create “Save Code Now” requests on our behalf (we
> cannot do it ourselves since the site doesn’t accept plain tarballs.)

Were you able to retrieve some of these?  What are the chances of
success?

> Hence the discussion we had: switch from url-fetch to git-fetch.
> However, after some investigations, it does not seem straightforward:
> The main issue being the almost automatic current updater.  See for
> details [2].

[...]

> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/878rnwuemq.fsf <at> elephly.net

Indeed, thanks for the link.  I agree that long-term moving to
‘git-fetch’ sounds preferable, but there are quite a few obstacles to
overcome.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.